Mods / Upgrades = Zip Gun?

[bee-kay]

I was reading the law about the legality of firearms that are modified for use as something other than the manufacturers original intended purpose, as being a zip gun.
So that sounds like if I have a 1911 with that is a .45 ACP and I get a kit to convert it to .22 LR, then it just might fall under that Zip Gun category.
Am I following that correctly?

[Capt.Dunsel]

I was reading the law about the legality of firearms that are modified for use as something other than the manufacturers original intended purpose, as being a zip gun.
So that sounds like if I have a 1911 with that is a .45 ACP and I get a kit to convert it to .22 LR, then it just might fall under that Zip Gun category.
Am I following that correctly?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjK--e6p_foAhUGGs0KHZB1DTIQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FImprovised_firearm&usg=AOvVaw0LvwQa6_FH2-w7zirG_L7u

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjK--e6p_foAhUGGs0KHZB1DTIQwqsBMAF6BAgLEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvkEeZCsCqgI&usg=AOvVaw1tVAUKRvIvDoelSCSvHGdV

Does your converted 45 acp to 22 rf fit one of these ? Does it modify it to be used as something other than its intended purpose ?

Does this answer your question ?

[bee-kay]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...FH2-w7zirG_L7u

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjK--e6p_foAhUGGs0KHZB1DTIQwqsBMAF6BAgLEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvkEeZCsCqgI&usg=AOvVaw1tVAUKRvIvDoelSCSvHGdV

Does your converted 45 acp to 22 rf fit one of these ? Does it modify it to be used as something other than its intended purpose ?

Does this answer your question ?

Well - I wouldn't say that a .45 cal 1911 converted to .22 LR would be a zip gun.
But from the wording of the law, it almost sounds like someone could interpret a conversion of a different caliber to be a modification that is to be used for something other than the manufacturers intended purpose.
If I got pulled over and searched and a LEO viewed that gun as such a gun, I can guarantee that my name would be on the front page of the local paper, right underneath the headline story of whatever Trump's most recent malfunction for the day is.
Life in CA can be hilarious that way.

[P5Ret]

Let's look at the Ca penal code definition of a "zip gun", and use your example of a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit, shall we.

17360.
As used in this part, “zip gun” means any weapon or device that meets all of the following criteria:

(a) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(b) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(c) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(d) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

Does the 1911 with a conversion kit meet all of the above criteria to be considered a "zip gun"? Simple answer is no. If you think it does, then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.

[Capt.Dunsel]

Well - I wouldn't say that a .45 cal 1911 converted to .22 LR would be a zip gun.
But from the wording of the law, it almost sounds like someone could interpret a conversion of a different caliber to be a modification that is to be used for something other than the manufacturers intended purpose.
If I got pulled over and searched and a LEO viewed that gun as such a gun, I can guarantee that my name would be on the front page of the local paper, right underneath the headline story of whatever Trump's most recent malfunction for the day is.
Life in CA can be hilarious that way.

And how often do you "convert" your TC Contender from one caliber to another ?

A fire arm manufactured as a firearm is intended to be used as a firearm , just because you change the caliber doesn't mean you are changing the intended purpose of said firearm . The intended purpose is to "be" a firearm .

Your beginning to sound like your just trolling to see what bait to use . Join date 6/22/2010 and only 31 posts .

[Garv]

So I can't convert a Glock 35 to 9mm?
I guess that is subconsciously why I got a 34.

Someone will always use things against us if they can wiggle a way to meet their goals.

[bee-kay]

And how often do you "convert" your TC Contender from one caliber to another ?

A fire arm manufactured as a firearm is intended to be used as a firearm , just because you change the caliber doesn't mean you are changing the intended purpose of said firearm . The intended purpose is to "be" a firearm .

Your beginning to sound like your just trolling to see what bait to use . Join date 6/22/2010 and only 31 posts .

Not trolling - It just doesn't hurt to make sure about things, before investing, or making upgrades.
I hear all sorts of stuff through the grapevine and it goes from being absurd to frightening when something can get you into legal trouble.

I never posted here much, because I mainly shoot lever rifles and revolvers, just to play it safe and not push my luck with the law.
But here we are putting fins on the pistol grips of ARs so technically it won't be a pistol grip feature.
Asking to clarify the absurdity of this stuff is just smart, considering that someone can have their firearm confiscated for a violation.

[RickD427]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...FH2-w7zirG_L7u

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjK--e6p_foAhUGGs0KHZB1DTIQwqsBMAF6BAgLEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvkEeZCsCqgI&usg=AOvVaw1tVAUKRvIvDoelSCSvHGdV

Does your converted 45 acp to 22 rf fit one of these ? Does it modify it to be used as something other than its intended purpose ?

Does this answer your question ?

Please keep in mind that none of this is relevant to California's definition of a "Zip Gun." It really doesn't matter if the the weapon was, or was not, modified to be used "as something other than its intended purpose."

P5Ret posted the definition of a Zip Gun that is applicable in California. There are four tests, and a firearm that meets all four tests is a "Zip Gun."

There are at least three troubling issues with California's definition:

1) The State DOJ has made an effort to expand the definition of "manufacturing" to include the alteration of an existing weapon into a new configuration. This was most recently revealed in the BBRAW regs where they asserted that changing the magazine release system on a weapon created a "new" weapon that was separate from the "old" weapon. That assertion has yet to be tested in court and we don't know yet if it's gonna fly.

2) The definition incorporates an element of whether federal excise tax was paid on the weapon, or if it was exempt from the tax under two enumerated section of the federal tax code. When you work through that maze, you'll find that a person making less than 50 weapons in a year is exempt from the federal excise tax, but that the source of that exemption lies outside the two enumerated sections. (This one is a real PITB, I had to work through it once in anticipation of a defense 995 motion).

3) The "Zip Gun" must be different from one designed by a licensed manufacturer (pattern firearm), but the statute gives no clarity of how much tolerance is allowed. Would a minor difference in finish, or location of manufacture, make it "different" (like in the safe handgun roster), or is it sufficient for the weapon to follow the same basic design (like the conversion kit being discussed here matching the design of the "Colt Ace")?

If you go with the traditional view of "manufacturing" and the "close enough" view of a "Pattern Firearm", then the OP is on solid ground doing the conversion, and the weapon could not be considered as a "Zip Gun."

The real challenge for the "Zip Gun" issue is 80% builds that differ from a "Pattern Firearm." Consider the case of someone who builds a single shot, bolt action AR-15 pistol (in order to comply with PC 32000). Let's look at the four elements:

1) Was it imported by a "Licensed Importer"?

2) Was it designed by a "Licensed Manufacture"? (The AR-15 was, but the single shot bolt action weapon wasn't)

3) Was excise tax paid on the weapon, or was it exempt "under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"? - The weapon was exempt from the tax, but not under the provisions listed.

4) Was it "made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion"?

That weapon looks like it's gonna be a "Zip Gun."

The federal excise tax thing is really screwy. It is possible to broadly read the federal statues to a conclusion that an exemption is based within the enumerated section. For the record, the DDA that bought this issue to me did actually prevail on the 995 motion, but also opened "Pandora's Box" in the process.

[bee-kay]

Please keep in mind that none of this is relevant to California's definition of a "Zip Gun." It really doesn't matter if the the weapon was, or was not, modified to be used "as something other than its intended purpose."

P5Ret posted the definition of a Zip Gun that is applicable in California. There are four tests, and a firearm that meets all four tests is a "Zip Gun."

There are at least three troubling issues with California's definition:

1) The State DOJ has made an effort to expand the definition of "manufacturing" to include the alteration of an existing weapon into a new configuration. This was most recently revealed in the BBRAW regs where they asserted that changing the magazine release system on a weapon created a "new" weapon that was separate from the "old" weapon. That assertion has yet to be tested in court and we don't know yet if it's gonna fly.

2) The definition incorporates an element of whether federal excise tax was paid on the weapon, or if it was exempt from the tax under two enumerated section of the federal tax code. When you work through that maze, you'll find that a person making less than 50 weapons in a year is exempt from the federal excise tax, but that the source of that exemption lies outside the two enumerated sections. (This one is a real PITB, I had to work through it once in anticipation of a defense 995 motion).

3) The "Zip Gun" must be different from one designed by a licensed manufacturer (pattern firearm), but the statute gives no clarity of how much tolerance is allowed. Would a minor difference in finish, or location of manufacture, make it "different" (like in the safe handgun roster), or is it sufficient for the weapon to follow the same basic design (like the conversion kit being discussed here matching the design of the "Colt Ace")?

If you go with the traditional view of "manufacturing" and the "close enough" view of a "Pattern Firearm", then the OP is on solid ground doing the conversion, and the weapon could not be considered as a "Zip Gun."

The real challenge for the "Zip Gun" issue is 80% builds that differ from a "Pattern Firearm." Consider the case of someone who builds a single shot, bolt action AR-15 pistol (in order to comply with PC 32000). Let's look at the four elements:

1) Was it imported by a "Licensed Importer"?

2) Was it designed by a "Licensed Manufacture"? (The AR-15 was, but the single shot bolt action weapon wasn't)

3) Was excise tax paid on the weapon, or was it exempt "under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"? - The weapon was exempt from the tax, but not under the provisions listed.

4) Was it "made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion"?

That weapon looks like it's gonna be a "Zip Gun."

The federal excise tax thing is really screwy. It is possible to broadly read the federal statues to a conclusion that an exemption is based within the enumerated section. For the record, the DDA that bought this issue to me did actually prevail on the 995 motion, but also opened "Pandora's Box" in the process.

Thanks - That's a good reply
Legalese isn't one of my stengths. But with all of the grey area that there is on what's legal for someone to own as a semiauto rifle and what isn't... Along with the pressure that elected officials are getting from their constituency to target ARs, it isn't hard to figure out why the governor is moving in the direction of a semi auto rifle ban... Just to simplify things... But that's off topic, except that it's an example of just another reason to be confused.